Thursday, January 21, 2010

RIGHTS AND ABILITIES

Today, in a five to four ruling, the Supreme Court finally decided that all men are created equal...even rich men. After lifting the restrictions on the amount of money a corporation can give to a political campaign and when they're allowed to run ads prior to an election, the Supreme Court all but sealed the fate of "the McCain/Fiengold act" which has made mince meat of the first amendment since it's inception.
As expected, the left is having a tantrum. Why? Because of the long held liberal myth that corporations are nothing more than conglomerations of robotic non-human entities from a far away galaxy who's only purpose in life is to destroy the lives of poor people. Believe it or not though, corporations are actually comprised of American citizens who just so happen to own businesses. That's right, American citizens. Not robots, not elves, not space aliens, and not in-animate objects under the control of some OZ-like character hiding behind some massive green curtain. Corporations are nothing more than groups of people who share a common interest, as well as the same Constitutional rights as we "poor folk".

The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee our rights assuming only that you meet a specific income guideline. It guarantees ALL of us the same rights, regardless of whether you're dirt-poor broke, or the CEO of a major investment firm. And like ALL of us, the American CEO has the right to free speech. That means he/she has the right to purchase a prime time spot to air his multi-million dollar ad campaign for or against any candidate at any time.

This is when the liberal would say "But that's not fair, some people can't afford to buy ads on TV, and that could lead to corruption!". OK, can you point me to the line in Constitution that guarantees the right of the people to "afford", well...anything? To afford something has to do with personal ability, not personal rights. As for corruption, as long as a human being is involved, their could be (not necessarily will be) corruption. As for fairness, it is absolutely fair because both the rich and poor man have the right to purchase air time and speak their mind. The only difference is that one may not have the ability.
Another argument against this ruling is that only the opinion of "the rich" will find it's way into the public discourse. Really? You mean the opinion of a rich person like Al Gore? Or like George Soros? Maybe you mean the opinion of rich guys like Rush Limbaugh or Mitt Romney? I'll see your Barbara Streisand, and raise you one John Voight. How about I trade you one Ted Turner for a Rupert Murdoch? Just what is the opinion of a rich person?

Thankfully for us, these issues were sorted out a long time ago by a group of both rich and poor guys known as our founding fathers. They explain it all in a little piece of parchment called the Bill of Rights.

8 comments:

Paul Champagne said...

Bill of Rights???

I doubt half of our politicians have even read it.

Seane-Anna said...

Great post, Roadie! Glad to see your writer's block is history.

And ditto to Paul Champagne above. If those "half of our politicians" have read anything at all it was probably The Communist Manifesto and/or Rules for Radicals. No wonder they don't know $h!t.

wiseconservatism.com said...

I would bet that the politicians in Washington's top elite like Obama even know what the first words of the Bill of rights are.

Great post my friend, keep up the good work. Like Seane-Anna said, glad to see your writer's block is gone.

JMK said...

This was a major decision, perhaps even historical as it does eviscerate the heart of McCain-Feingold.

Sadly, McCain's legacy will be that of a "liberal appeaser," a gullible Centrist who got duped and fleeced by the younger, slicker, Russ Feingold.

I'm pulling for J. D. Hayworth in AZ....we can't afford to have McCain and his ilk around any more.

Beyond The Political Spectrum said...

Then therein lies the problem. The Founding Fathers did not envision that corprations would be considered virtual living entities with regards to the law, and thats the problem with such a strict interpretation of the law. Sometimes, we can have too many freedoms to the point that such cripples the spirit of the democratic process. There is no way that you can convince me that the framers of the Constitution either favored or considered that Big Money's (whether through labor unions or corporations) influence and access to the legislative process would be conducive to the spirit of the democratic process. Its no different than say, the issue of gay marriage on the Left...although the document is flexible, no way they envisioned flexibility to such an extend.

BTW...a former truck driver and law school student myself who's wise enough to know that there are more than 2 lifeforms and views in the known universe ("i.e., "liberals" and "conservatives"). ;)

Roadhouse said...

BTPS,
The founders did not envision corporations would ever be run by autonomous robots, because as of yet, they are not. Therefore, it goes without saying that corporations are not considered living entities, but the people who run them are. And those same people are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"...just like every other American.
But be that as it may, a popular, powerful, rich man had the same right to free speech in 1776, as he would in 2010...as did the poor downtrodden man both then and now.

As for democracy, it is our method of choosing leadership and part of our legislative process...NOT our system of government. We are a representative republic.

As for "lifeforms and views in the known universe", that too goes without saying. My blog is designed to be a springboard, or a primer to introduce and expose people to the general concepts of conservatism and liberalism.
People are hard to catagorize and pigeonhole, ideas though...not so much. It has been my experience that you can put most ideological concepts under one of two umbrellas...liberalism (old school progressivism) or conservatism.
The tricky part is to not confuse the ideal, with the process of instituting the ideal.

Merit Matters said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JMK said...

"The Founding Fathers did not envision that corprations would be considered virtual living entities with regards to the law..." (BTPS)


The problem with McCain-Feingold that the Citizens United V FEC decision remedied was the organizational inequality that McCain-Feingold had institutionalized.

So called "non-profits," like ACORN were allowed to act as veritable PACs, which appears to violate a number of IRS codes, but has yet to be fully addressed. Such organizations were NOT muzzled by McCain-Feingold, as corporate entities are.

Moreover, Corporate entities that bought media outlets, like GE's ownership of NBC and using, especially MSNBC as a mouthpiece for some of their more nefarious business policies and some irredeemably inane political and social commentary.

In fact, if Corporations don't have "Free speech rights," then that must include media outlets like the NY Times Corporation, or News Corp. - owner of FNC and the WSJ. If those corporate entities don't hold those rights, than both they AND the content they put out, can be regulated by the government.

No, that is unacceptable....and it would certainly be just as unacceptable to our nation's Founders.

A law (McCain-Feingold) that held different organizations (ALL comprised of humans) to different standards could not and should not have withstood court scrutiny. Either ALL such organizations should've been barred from free (political) speech (donations) or NONE...the abuses of ACORN and GE demanded that McCain-Feingold's unjust imbalances be evened out...either ALL or NONE, but no organization should be allowed to be treated differently than any other.

The Supreme Court, in this case, opted on ALL. I think America's Founders could live with that.