Editor’s note: Article 44 at the Town Meeting on March 28 will ask if Lincoln residents support passage of the We the People Act. The full warrant can be found here.
To the editor:
I attended the first of eight “Commonwealth Conversations” with state senators at Newton North High School [last week] to urge quick passage of the crucial We The People Act (Mass. House Docket 1988, filed Jan. 15, 2015). The “Commonwealth Conversations” are a series of grassroots forums that our state senators are holding to hear from us. It was a moving experience.
Lincoln’s Senator, Mike Barrett, was there, as was Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, lead sponsor of The We The People Act Senator Jamie Eldredge and several other senators, also many state representatives in the audience. The senators listened for almost two hours as more than fifty people spoke briefly on a wide range of issues and problems that urgently need to be addressed. Time ran out before all those who wanted to could speak.
More people spoke about the We The People Act than any other issue.
Lincoln’s upcoming Town Meeting will also discuss the We The People Act. There is a free workshop at Bemis on Saturday, March 21 from 9:30 a.m. to noon on the We The People Act.
Until we pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would affirm that the rights in the Constitution of the U.S. are the rights of human individuals only and not corporations, and that the spending of money to influence elections is not protected free speech under the First Amendment, little to nothing will happen to tackle let alone solve the issues brought before the Senators.
We are no longer a government of, by or for the people. Our state legislators are our last best hope to bring it back. Article V of the U.S. constitution empowers state legislators to call for an amendment convention if Congress refuses to act six months after 34 states have requested that they do so on these issues.
Here are just some of the many issues I wrote down that were addressed at the “conversation” in Newton (editor’s note: see the Newton Tab for more coverage):
- Support for Senator Barrett’s efforts to bring a much-needed revenue neutral carbon fee that would reimburse people for using less carbon based energy and would be a win-win for the people of Massachusetts and the environment
- Addressing rising medical costs (HD 1690) that might be solved with the passage of Medicare for all
- Urging more support for the mentally ill, those in recovery, children in schools, children in broken homes, people in nursing homes
- Addressing the foreclosure crisis that is still very much ongoing
- Improving the efficiency of open meeting laws to provide more transparency (HD 56)
- Support for local agriculture
- Solving the disaster that is the MBTA and public transportation in general
- Criminal justice reform
- Ending unjust, unequal mandatory minimum drug sentences
- More support for legal aid
- Support for transparency in State House Committee Assignments and the Massachusetts legislative budget process in general
Sincerely,
Jean Palmer
Tower Road
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrel.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.
Oops, I meant Michael Coppock’s question. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCxLwCpJ2HI
Here’s my answer to Jean Palmer’s question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCxLwCpJ2HI
While it not new it is not right and corporations are killing us all with their “rights”
Corporate Personhood and the Right to Harm
In 1886 the Supreme Court started down a treacherous path by viewing corporations as “people” with rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Since that time the Court has granted”corporate persons” additional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.
With what we call “corporate personhood”, rights originally meant to protect human beings from the potentially oppressive powers of our government now belong as well to the corporation, an artificial entity. Corporations claim these constitutional rights in Federal court as they attempt, often with success, to overturn, weaken, or get around laws designed to protect the environment.
By asserting their personhood rights, corporations are able to influence legislation and gain access to the courts. The total effect is devastating, with no part of our environment left untouched. Corporations not only find ways to avoid or minimize regulation but use their wealth and power to slow or halt enforcement.
The First Amendment
“. . . no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .”
The First Amendment right to free speech has been broadened by the courts to allow
corporations to give campaign contributions, lobby legislators, run advertisements that support their interests, exercise the right not to speak, and paint their activities as “green.”
The Fourth Amendment
“The right of the people to be secure. . . against unreasonable searches and seizures. . .”
Under many circumstances, corporations now have the right to “shut the door” on government inspectors who lack a search warrant. The resulting delay may be enough for a company to cover up signs of wrongdoing. Even if evidence is collected under a search warrant, there is no guarantee that it will hold up in court.
The Fifth Amendment
“. . . nor shall any person. . .be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Corporations have the right to challenge governmental actions that protect the environment by claiming they are “takings” of their property rights. Further, the government may be required to provide monetary compensation for any consequent reduction in property value, even intangible property value such as lost potential profits.
The 14th Amendment
“. . . nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.”
By using the cry of “equal protection” to open the courts to them, corporations can evade,
if not overturn, regulations while conducting business as usual.
By asserting their personhood rights, corporations are able to influence legislation and gain access to the courts. The total effect is devastating, with no part of our environment left untouched. Corporations not only find ways to avoid or minimize regulation but use their wealth and power to slow or halt enforcement.
We need to accept that there is no point in continuing to play the same game. Corporations have shown that they are better at it. But if we abolish corporate personhood, they lose the constitutional rights that have permitted them to trump democratic processes. If we recognize that corporations are legal entities, created and defined by the authority of government – and extended privileges rather than rights, we will help lay the foundations for the creation of a true democracy.
http://www.wilpf.org
If this effort to amend the First Amendment is such a good idea, why is it opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says, “Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of ‘big money’ in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision [Citizens United]. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united
The idea of treating corporations as “persons” is neither new nor novel. The definitions sections of both the U.S. Code and the Mass. General Laws define “person” to include corporations. Corporations are merely associations of individuals who have banded together to pursue profit (e.g., General Motors) or social goals (e.g., Planned Parenthood). The First Amendment rights that they exercise are the rights of their stockholders and supporters to advance their goals. That cannot be done without spending money. Limiting the ability of corporations to spend money to publicize their positions on political issues limits the rights of citizens to free association and to speak on political issues.