Editor’s note: The two letters below also appear as comments at the bottom of a January 8 letter that supported the “We the People” Act. We’re now posting them as separate letters for those who didn’t see the comments appended to that letter.
Jan. 26, 2015
To the editor:
The rebuttal letter from Mr. Michael R. Coppock of January 8 [see below], which was in reply to the letter of January 8 from Jean Palmer et al, says that the “We the People” amendment could deprive corporations of fundamental capabilities, some of which they need to operate effectively, and prohibit all political advertising and thereby wipe out most political speech. Of course those things could happen, just as Congress could decide to demolish the interstate highway system.
But the likelihood that any of these things would happen is zero. Most corporate rights and privileges that enable them to operate are incorporated in federal and state law which would not be overturned with this amendment. Mr. Coppock seems to imply that a “We the People” amendment would require these extreme and bizarre results. Whether intended or not, that implication is simply false.
What the amendment would do is return to us, as voters, the ability to make such decisions through our elected representatives as had been done since the country’s founding. The amendment will restore the meaning of parts of the Constitution to what any reader can see was their original intent now given them by the Supreme Court.
It is unfortunate that the only way to overturn harmful decisions by the Supreme Court—in this case, the fiction that corporations are people and money is equal to free speech—is by amending the Constitution, but that is the situation.
Sincerely,
Jean Palmer
Tower Road
Jan. 8, 2015
To the editor:
I read the letter of Jean Palmer et al regarding the proposed constitutional amendment to “to affirm, (1) that rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of humans only, not corporations, and (2) that Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and spending.” The first proposal would deprive corporations of the right to jury trial, indictment by grand jury, compensation for taking of property, free speech, protection against double jeopardy, unreasonable searches and seizures, equal protection of the law, and due process of law. This would affect not merely Exxon Corporation, but also the ACLU. All corporations, for-profit and non-profit, would become outlaws.
The second proposal would permit Congress and the states to effectively prohibit advertising and publications on political issues by limiting expenditures on those topics to zero, or to amounts so small as to make publicity ineffectual. In other words, limitations on political spending would repeal the First Amendment right of free speech on “political” topics (and what topics are not “political” today, given the vast scope of government?), for how can we exercise that right if we cannot join with others to spend money to support, oppose, or influence the policies of the government? Again, this would limit not only Exxon, but also the ACLU. Is that what the proponents of the amendments want?
Sincerely,
Michael R. Coppock
214 Aspen Circle
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrrel.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.
Ms. Palmer admits that the proposed amendment would indeed deprive corporations of the CONSTITUTIONAL right to jury trial, indictment by grand jury, compensation for taking of property, free speech, protection against double jeopardy, unreasonable searches and seizures, equal protection of the law, and due process of law. She claims that these rights (other than free speech, of course) will be restored by LEGISLATION. However, legislation can be repealed or amended at any time. Given the hostility of the Left to ANY corporate rights, we must ask how secure those rights will be if based solely on legislation, and not on the constitution. Do you really want to invest in Exxon of Apple if its property rights are not secure? The Right could also use the abolition of these Constitutional rights to deprive Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of the right to speak out on issues of the day.