U.S. SUPREME COURT, BAKER V. CARR, 1962: "ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE": CITIZENS UNITED & REMOVING LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUAL CAMPAIGN DONATIONS, RIGHT IN THERE WITH DRED SCOTT, MOST SCORNED DECISION--FREE SLAVE, NOT A PERSON, BUT PROPERTY, JUST AS INSANE AS CORPORATIONS, ARE PERSONS, EQUAL STATUS UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS--NO JUST A LEGAL FICTION, FOR EASE OF DOING BUSINESS AS USUAL, NOT POLITICS! DILUTING VOTES AND OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, BASED ON REPRESENTATION, ALSO VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION, 14TH AMENDMENT

Corporations Are Persons--A Legal Fiction

So the contrast and comparison, I want to make is the rational, starting with the Dred Scott Decision, 1857, that basically said, the Constitution does not consider slaves to be U.S. citizens.  Rather they are constitutionally protected property of their masters.  This is considered one of the most important and scorned decisions in the nation's history, as is the 2010, Citizens United Decision, making corporations people, and entitled to free speech, under the 1st amendment, lifting all limits on corporate donations made to political candidates, and now, the Court has gone even further down the line of absurdity, in eliminating, all caps on individual political contributions.

So we have a person, who is not a person, but property, for the next 100 years, almost, minus 3 years, when the dumb ass, separate but equal, enshrining of Jim Crow Laws, in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, finally, finds the Court, evolving to the point of fully recognizing, Blacks as persons on equal standing with Whites . . . in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954.  The United States Supreme Court, failing to recognize, a walking, talking, two legged, thinking, breathing, loving human being, as a person, going to the other extreme, of recognizing a cold hearted, money making machine, power hungry, legal fiction, as a person, entitled to the protections in the Bill of Rights?  REALLY?

Legal fictions, are not entitled to first amendment, free speech; this is contrary to the plain language, history, and intent, of the Bill of Rights, referring to "rights of the people."  In the three elements of statutory and constitutional interpretation, which I have just mentioned, there is no reference to corporations, either in the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence, or the historical account, that was the intent to rectify the wrongs perpetrated against and on the citizens of the colonies.  Legal fictions, for the convenience of business as usual, are not persons, in any way, shape or form for the purposes of the, U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, Republican form of government--a representative form of government, which implies, and later substantiated, by Baker v. Carr, "one person, one vote."

Watering Down the Vote, Allowing Corporate Persons, Now Taking Off Limits for Individuals--one person, one vote?

Rather than seeing the public outcry, especially, form the state of Montana, who had 100 years of anti-corruption laws overturned, with the Citizens United Decision . . . the high Court continues to lead Dorothy, Toto, the Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow, down the yellow brick road, to a fake Oz, or wizard.  To reverse, this asinine law, totally should be void, according to prior precedence and authority, by the same court, in both Marbury v. Madison, 1803 and McCullouch v. Maryland, 1819, that any law or ruling in this case, that is repugnant to the Constitution, is void, and any law or holding that is consistent with the Constitution, it constitutional . . .

Montana, had a history, of dealing with the Copper Kings, who basically had large corporations and businesses, and a shit load of money to burn, unlike the average Joe, citizen, and they used their massive wealth to buy, sell and control, judges, legislators, and other elected officials, local, state, and national, office holders to get their special interests satisfied.  If we fail to look at history, we will forever remain a child!  We are talking big time corruption, power, wealth, influence, that make really great people, want to avoid running for office, those with clean hands and pure hearts . . . few and far between, but they do exist.

The Court Fails To Distinguish, Part of the Job, Between Media Corporations & Corporations--and Labor Unions

Corporations are formed, for the purpose of doing business, and that is it.  Where the distinction should come in, is what the purpose of the business or corporation is.  In 1st National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court granted 1st amendment protections to media corporations, but not others, and the Court said that created a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions. 

Media corporations, deal with freedom of speech, or first amendment protections, so they can free and fairly report the news, without hindrance from the government, money, powers, and influences . . . just give us the straight scoop.  That is very different from say J.P. Morgan, Walmart, or Hobby Lobby, who have businesses far removed from needing the protections of free speech!  Americans rely on news sources to let them know what is going on in the country, without fear of reprisal, indoctrination or propaganda, like you will see in eastern block countries--that is not America! 

Commodities, stocks and bonds, goods and services, timber, oil, etc., are not in the business that relies heavily on first amendment protections!  Therefore, as a logical conclusion, the Court is dealing with apples and oranges, rather than similar classes of corporations, a faulty comparison.  That would go equally for Unions v. Corporations, or as my very, allegedly, constitutionally conservative friend, as he call himself, tried to convince me that unions had long had the power to lobby, spend a shit load of money, and throw a powerful influence over a particular issue, but once again, union members have the right to vote on their representatives; however, in a corporation, a board of directors may be deciding that 1500 employees, who may not share their political views, or endorsements, but still are lumped all together in their corporate entity, regardless of personal feelings--apples and oranges!

After Citizens United, employees of large corporations, where worried about losing their jobs, if they opposed, even at the highest level, what the board of directors, or the person in charge of deciding what interests or candidates the corporation was going to donate money to.  To publically held corporations, send out a poll or vote on which candidates they will and will not contribute to, who determines where the money goes?  That is a whole lot different than one person, one vote!  And our Republican form of government.

Big Picture Question--Can We Make A More Perfect Union Watering Down the Whole Purpose of the Republican Form of Government?

In Baker v. Carr, 1962, where the one person, one vote phrase was derived from, came from philosophical roots in this case.  In this case, a group of Tennessee voters sued the state, claiming its voting districts diluted their political power.  Until this  point, the Court refused to decide this kind of case, leaving such political questions to the states.  Baker, however, held that the states must meet a Constitutional standard for appointment; districts cannot be drawn in such a way that they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment!

Does giving corporations legal status as citizens, entitled to person-hood status, rather than just being a person acting as one entity, like a person would, as a legal fiction, or allowing a wealthy individual, due to contributions, an edge in influencing the vote, providing moneys for advertising, ads, TV, or printed material, more voting power, thus violating the equal protections, guaranteed by the Constitution, defeat the whole purpose and experiment of this American ideal, of the Preamble?

PREAMBLE

We the PEOPLE of the United States, in Order fo 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.

You now have the rational behind the trouble with this line of cases, starting with Citizens United and continuing on to the one issued last week, taking of limits on individual persons--WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Sincerely,

JoAnn S. Secrist, J.D.

Constitutional Law Attorney

Member of the United States Supreme Court Bar--I disagree with the court, obviously!