Wednesday January 8, 2025
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Jan-28-2010 15:30printcomments

Supremes Bolster 'Yo-Yo Economy' Via Corporate Sell-Out

"Right" reverses founder insights & centuries of history, part one of three: Seaside Signal Series.

Supremes
Courtesy: commlawblog.com

(EUGENE, Ore.) - There is no possible doubt to whom our Founders deferred in their uniquely creative invention of our governance system. Their every statement rings and resonates with full and still worthy recognition of both the strengths and weaknesses of the ordinary human being.

How could it be otherwise? That still-primitive form of early business --the corporation groping and grasping for new ways to seize profits by every possible means-- was then still universally viewed as a danger to community and commonweal.

Corporations ARE NOT humans. Their very existence depends on legal-charter provisions shaped solely by human act, and their every action is only by decision of humans seeking "profits uber alles".

Leading economists and many others well-experienced now in the corporate form see that form-itself as the major generator of what is termed ”the Yo-Yo economy”: That very peculiar combination of capitalism and corporate greed forcing recurring crises, shaping the world economy into very perilous “You’re On Your Own” status and stance for millions working worldwide.

Massive manipulations leading to monstrous movements of manufacturing jobs, horrendous losses in job security, and total evaporation of longtime pension obligations, with devastating damages to every other characteristic of “the American Dream” for our middle class -- and others still seeking to BECOME “middle class”-- is the now-obvious overwhelming result.

Corporations DO NOT breath, bleed, eat, procreate; nor defecate or urinate --all defining characteristics of "a human being": Read “natural person”, in lawyer lingo, learned long ago as “legal fiction” creating a convenient major differentiation from true human entities --worthy of true “human rights” by the very fact of that status. Corporations ARE NOT “natural persons”.

They cannot and should not be treated as if they were “human”. To do so multiplies, magnifies and massively distorts the very dangers to democracy against which our Founders erected our tri-part system of governance.: Legislative, Executive, Judicial.

How astounded they would have been to find the Supreme Court --the bastion of our protection against undue influence and especially dollar-domination of our democracy-- selling out true democratic sensibilities to corporate money-muscle, now already manipulating too much of our representative-based republic.

That’s-the very last action our Founders would ever have taken --NOW unwisely visited upon us by the Supremes acting in mischievous misunderstanding OR by malign political intent. “The powers-that--be” (read: “monied interests”) have sought that unwarranted, dangerous status for what is ONLY a “legal convenience” for more than a century.

Their motivation is massive, since it brings not only strong protections for current corporate convolutions, but tremendous further future funding and governance-shaping possibilities. The Supremes specifically refused any consideration of how dangerous it is to open our governance to foreign-owned firms.

Massive money-based new ways to shape and direct our government, far beyond the impacts of “tax-breaks”, will now inevitably, take place --IF WE CHOOSE TO ALLOW THEM. The natural corrective for wild aberration by the current Supremes --intentional for sure, malign by overwhelming political evidence-- is Congressional action, by impeachment of these Justices or by actual Constitutional change to remedy their action and prevent further perversion of clear intent-and-design by our Founders.

The most significant characterization of that birth-charter, for each and every corporation, is the single-minded, simplistic and selfish foundation-and-operating principle of Pursuit Of Profit.

In fact, that is the major distinguishing characterization of the format for business and manufacturing and technical operations we have long ago learned constitutes "the corporation" these days. THAT can only create huge difficulties as demonstrated, remorselessly and worldwide, for the past 50 years.

Most economists worldwide now attribute the current extreme economic debacle to overweening, unregulated greedy grasp by burgeoning new forms of corporate combinations active worldwide. More than 100 nations have now freely applied remediating action designed to disarm, deny and defeat distortion of now inevitable globalization of trade.

They have adopted and adapted individual and mutual steps to control and contain, even collapse, the most dangerous of these desperate depredations --with more sure-to-come now. Those indisputable facts surely justify strong and rapid Congressional intervention, with clear motivation the prevention of Constitutional depredation by those charged with responsibility to protect and preserve our foundation for law and governance. Corporations DO NOT THINK, either, since they are NOT human but only a polite legal convenience for those humans who DO THINK --and manage/manipulate under corporate cover.

It is their sentiments and preferences now made most particularly powerful by this remarkable dereliction by the Supremes. It is their concept of “political speech” now sure to prevail, given the massive money-muscle of corporate income. By definition, true “political speech” demands human wisdom and human understandings and human THOUGHT -- none of which can possible originate within “a legal fiction”, used only for convenience in managing its profit-seeking, charter-demanded corporate affairs. “Legal fictions: cannot think --only human beings do so.

The only possible “passionate empowerment” of any corporation for any political opinion --and thus the need for "political free speech"-- can obviously thus originate in what thinking someone human does, for the other humans comprising the group we designate as "the corporation". Given the fact of charter-mission only to seek profit, any such activity originating with a thinking human being and then undertaken by the corporation is powered --and can be enforced legally-- by that immutable fact.

Henry Ford’s wise-and-generous action in building base wage for his workers sufficient to allow their purchase of their mutual product was challenged by Ford stockholders --and the court awarded them the “victory”!

The corporate-format group is NOW RECOGNIZED as comprising far more than merely those whose monies may be starting impetus for the publicly-chartered enterprise seeking profit-alone: Due to overwhelming strengths of capital-applied via the corporate format, responsibility for consequences-due to that strength-applied is also now firmly saddled right where it should be -- on the corporate form and the attitudes it inevitably generates.

Dangerous working conditions, constant defilement of the environment, widespread air pollution, and inevitable horrendous accumulation of industrial waste, and many other aberrations against a plundered planet, are all now clearly seen as inevitable consequences of the remorseless drive for “profits uber allies”.

Those consequence are now firmly and finally saddled right on corporate management, with full public attention now guaranteed by our long, horrible, expensive, dangerous and still too-strong and democratically-threatening experience so far.

----------------------------------------------------------

At 21, Henry Clay Ruark was Aroostook Editor for the Bangor, Maine DAILY NEWS, covering the upper 1/4 of the state. In the ‘40s, he was Staff Correspondent, then New England Wires Editor at United Press-Boston; later Editor for the Burlington, Vermont 3-daily group owned by Wm. Loeb, later notorious at Manchester, New Hampshire UNION LEADER for attacks on Democratic Presidential candidates.

Hank returned to Oregon to complete M. Ed. degree at OSU, went on to Indiana University for Ed.D. (abd) and special other course-work; was selected as first Information Director for NAVA in Washington, D.C.; helped write sections of NDEA, first Act to supply math, science, foreign language consultants to state depts. of education; joined Oregon Dept. of Education, where he served as NDEA administrator/Learning Media Consultant for ten years.

He joined Dr. Amo DeBernardis at PCC, helping establish, extend programs, facilities, Oregon/national public relations; moved to Chicago as Editor/Publisher of oldest educational-AV journal, reformed as AV GUIDE Magazine; then established and operated Learning Media Associates as general communications consultant group. Due to wife’s illness, he returned to Oregon in 1981, semi-retired, and has continued writing intermittently ever since, joining S-N in 2004. His Op Eds now total over 560 written since then.




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Hank Ruark January 29, 2010 6:17 pm (Pacific time)

Vic: Kind words always appreciated here, esp. when painfully earned as in this series. Re picture, you realize I'm wearing mask to further amaze and mystify some readers...


Ersun Warncke January 29, 2010 4:35 pm (Pacific time)

Hank, it is rare that I am described as being too kind. Apparently I am not up to my typical acerbic form. But you are of course right. The real infringement of free speech is in granting monopolies over public mediums to private parties.


Hank Ruark January 29, 2010 4:10 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Anon or false name provides no shelter if and when the copyright law broken, as in plagiarizing from Wills column. Usual wordage considered a violation is "more than a couple sentences" but depends on effect of amount-used.  "Intent is taken-for-granted since nobody copies except by obvious intent when used in another location for content" --to quote lawyer-then.  FYI, law enforcement can force ID of email received in such cases, and channel has no way to avoid supplying the electronic traces inevitably left on receipt. Believe me, friends, it IS possible, easy, NOT ultra costly to determine positively who sends what on current-use email channels for Comment...
and you DO NOT want to know who can now do that rapidly if and where demanded by event. Happens Chicago magazine I edited challenged several big cities on illegality of copy made under review-for-purchase and this ID point arose...with resulting changes in copyright law to clarify points involved in that situation.

(added) To all: In Chicago,when a similar false name submitted as cover for Letter to Editor attacking one major media producer, we joined forces with producer to seek out perpetrator, via the lawfirm serving producer. Result was civil suit which was followed by state legal action vs illegality shown by civil suit, which we won with "very satisfying" judgment. Judgment paid lease costs nicely for six months of Lake Shore Drive residence, as reported previously here. Might use same attack here if harassment continues, and have fwded this sequence to same law-firm in Chicago still headed by same friend, now 89, very active and still leading litigation intermittently. Editor's notes serve as full current documentation, and now show recurrence reported now traceable to known perp.


Carolyn Ellis January 29, 2010 3:14 pm (Pacific time)

Extending the logic of a 1976 decision, the court has now held...

Editor: This is that moron who uses the name "Stuart" and "82nd Airborne Vet" parading as a lady again.  It was nonsensical racist neocon BS, so nobody is missing anything.  Please use your name when leaving comments and if you don't, at least don't try to deceive us.  


Hank Ruark January 29, 2010 12:58 pm (Pacific time)

Carolyn:
One does not copy word for word from national columnist without due attribution.  Yours here comes word for word,in several sentences sure to be seen as consituting major copying, from George Wills' Thursday column. Despite column in full and open publication, to do so without proper attribution to the author is very possibly vulnerable as copyright law violation --as well as denial of commonly followed writer's courtesy.  Doubt you meant to take that risk, which I happen to know well from positive-side in some previous mag.experience, which resulted in an actual wording change in the law-then after full investigation. This meant NOT to "chastise" but to avoid possible trouble for both you-and-S/N...where we already had bad experience with prior situation not of our own making, involving olagiarism in some depth. Strong prior professional motivation brings me to check out all-such here, in simple personal/professional defense. Thoughtful participation here is highly appreciated and we look forward to YOUR OWN words expressing insights and background experience !!  You can do just as well as Wills, I'll betcha !

Editor: Hank, this as it turns out, is "Stuart" if you recall the name, one worthless commenter who has once again been caught posing as a woman in an attempt to litter our pages with nonsense.  


Hank Ruark January 29, 2010 11:07 am (Pacific time)

Friend Ersun: You are too kind here, sir ! For anyone seeking "freedom to speak" via these plundered channels, experience tells all even for talk/show participant count... The "auction" of our great heritage of publicly owned physical spectrum channels is now well, widely appreciated as intentional and highly illegal action of a corrupt administration. It represents only one of massive similar situations stemming from the root cause of corporate corruption by the money-power: Deliberate action by a court reporter with close ties to railroad money power, stating "in error" an offhand, too- casual statement by a judge, distorted into seeming legal precedent, broadly used by the business cabal to cover their assumption of political speech leading to "corporate campaign contributions" --now clearly the heart of truly massive legislative corruption at every level. It is fear of growing public understanding of past events which drives coverups such as that committed by Supremes, as intended via their choice and appointment. See following Op Eds now in work, supported by extensive prior study, reading, and some reporting experience in touch with revealing realities.


Ersun Warncke January 29, 2010 10:30 am (Pacific time)

Carolyn, there is a big difference between individual speech and mass broadcasting such as television and radio. Television and radio are privately owned. They are not the public square. As long as mass broadcasting is privately owned, then the speech broadcast on it must be regulated. Otherwise, broadcast mediums have no speech rights for the average citizen at all. The best solution to this would be eliminating private ownership of broadcast mediums, which would allow them to be a true public square. In the interim, the government must regulate broadcast mediums in order to give the average citizen even a moderate degree of freedom of speech in those mediums. The necessity for regulation of broadcasting arises from earlier decisions to auction off those mediums to the highest bidder, which was a mistake, but until that mistake is corrected, the government must exercise its authority to maintain at least some freedom of speech in these fenced off public squares.


Carolyn Ellis January 29, 2010 9:33 am (Pacific time)

Last week's Supreme Court decision that substantially deregulates political speech has provoked an edifying torrent of hyperbole. Critics' dismay reveals their conviction: Speech about the elections that determine the government's composition is not a constitutional right but a mere privilege that exists at the sufferance of government.
How regulated did political speech become during the decades when the court was derelict in its duty to actively defend the Constitution? The Federal Election Commission, which administers the law that rations the quantity and regulates the content and timing of political speech, identifies 33 types of political speech and 71 kinds of "speakers." The underlying statute and FEC regulations cover more than 800 pages, and FEC explanations of its decisions have filled more than 1,200 pages. The First Amendment requires 10 words for a sufficient stipulation: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."


Vic January 29, 2010 9:19 am (Pacific time)

Right on, Henry !! Great pic, by the way !

[Return to Top]
©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for January 27, 2010 | Articles for January 28, 2010 | Articles for January 29, 2010
Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

googlec507860f6901db00.html
Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.