DAVID COBB IN FORT PIERCE

We had an enlightening evening with David Cobb of Move to Amend on Thursday, who reviewed American history and the meaning of the constitution, and why, legally, corporations can’t be people. Back in 1789, for a corporation to get a charter, the process was similar to getting a law passed today, and had to be approved by the governor. Legally, the corporation existed to serve the people and was a means to put private money to public good. The typical length of a charter ran from two to no more than twenty years. Today, not one Fortune 500 company would qualify as a corporation under the original definition. Now, legally considered a person, the government serves corporations, rather than the people with whom power constitutionally resides. In essence, corporations have stolen the power of the people and the result is the inequality, poverty and lack of support for the many, in favor of protecting the profits of the few. For more information go to MoveToAmend.org. Journalist Anthony Westbury has also written an excellent article about the effort to amend the constitution to correct the fallacy that corporations are people and that money is free speech.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION - A PIECE OF HISTORY

by Greg Wilson

photo credit

The notes from the committee that met before the final draft of the constitution can be found at http://nhccs.org/Mnotes.html. James Madison's notes give us a picture of the minds of those who formed the draft of the constitution and in some cases the minds of those who sent them -- the people they represented. For example, from the Friday night discussion of September 14, 1787; Mr. KING, said, “The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philadelphia and New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a Bank, which has been a subject of contention in those Cities. In other places it will be referred to as mercantile monopolies.” 

        Reading Madison's notes is much like hearing the conversations of a committee that writes or rewrites the by-laws of any church's or non profit. The committee will meet, discuss, edit, agree and disagree, and then bring a draft for the congregation or group to vote upon. As members consider the nature of the by-laws, they consider how the church or organization is going to run, the agreements and objections some members might have, models of other by-laws, what is right and not right, and how to structurally protect the organization and its members. The protection is both internal and external. This comparison points to the nature of the constitution as a document of structure; how the country will operate, how the philosophy of representational democracy will be enacted, and how there is built into the very structure protections of the State in relation to the Federal government, protections of the individual from both the State and Federal government, and protections from the different subgroups that make up the whole. 

     One thing that is not in the Constitution are protections for the Earth. Yet they are there indirectly. When as the Declaration of Independence declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, ....... laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” All these unalienable rights require a healthy Earth to be actualized. One day these Rights might be found more directly in the laws of our land in the form of: Every component of the Earth community has three rights: the right to be, the right to habitat, and the right to fulfill its role in the ever-renewing processes of the Earth community. We are on our way but not there yet. I wonder what the formation committee conversation would be like to include these rights in our Constitution? 

       We are particularly interested in Friday September 14^th as it deals with incorporation and who will mange the corporations: the Federal government or the State. We know that in 1819, John Marshall brought the Federal government in to manage contracts and corporations under the federal government's authority. This was a shift, I believe, from the intention of the constitution. Further, it honored a charter signed by King George in the 1750's that went against the people of New Hampshire. I thought King George's rule was one of the reasons for the revolutionary war. A decision by the New Hampshire State legislature was invalidated and the signature of King George once again ruled the people of the USA. This begs the question: Whose side are they on anyway? 

     In addition, the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819), was a landmark decision from the United States Supreme Court dealing with the application of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the college to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the college, which pre-dated the creation of the State. The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the free American enterprise system.