The Founding Fathers Did Not Write The Bill Of Rights To Protect Corporations

Author Topic: The Founding Fathers Did Not Write The Bill Of Rights To Protect Corporations  (Read 14763 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

charrington

  • Guest
The Founding Fathers Did Not Write The Bill Of Rights To Protect Corporations Like Wal-Mart

There are many varied opinions on the purpose of the United States Supreme Court, but its basic function is to uphold the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and check the power of the Legislative and Executive branches of government. The current court has extended its purview to protecting corporations from adherence to the law and for ensuring that conservative ideology is the law of the land. Last year, the court’s decision in the Citizens United case opened the floodgates of corporate control of elections that has produced the current flock of Republicans who are rapidly transforming America into a plutocracy. Yesterday, the court ruled unanimously that a class-action against retail giant Wal-Mart was too broad in scope, and also ruled by a vote of 5-4 that the 6 women plaintiffs did not prove they suffered from a common policy of discrimination in pay equality and discrimination.

The conservative majority’s decision is not surprising, and is yet another blow to women as well as workers whose best chances at forcing change in corporate attitudes toward workers’ rights is a class action lawsuit. The conservative majority claimed that the 6 women, who represent as many as 1.6 million current and former female employees, did not prove they suffered from a “common policy of discrimination.”  Regardless of the conservative court’s decision, one would think that 1.6 million female employees complaint of pay and promotion discrimination constituted a pattern, but if the lawsuit had proceeded and the plaintiffs had prevailed, Wal-Mart would have been liable for billions of dollars in back pay. The current court’s majority could never have allowed the world’s largest retail employer to be held accountable to pay such huge damages, so they did not allow the 6 women to present their case for adjudication.

The decision is a double blow to workers in that women will continue to suffer discrimination from Wal-Mart and every other corporation, and large groups of workers will have difficulty ever bringing a class action against a corporate giant. The decision was in keeping with the conservative-minded court’s favoritism toward business and discrimination against the working class.

It is not the least bit surprising the court did not let the women plaintiffs present their argument that they were discriminated against because the conservatives, led by Antonin Scalia, do not believe women are protected by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment includes principles to protect citizens from being denied certain rights, and this court decision ignored each of them in favor of a corporation. In particular, the 14th Amendment guarantees that no person could be denied equal protection of the laws and that no person could be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without “due process of the law.” In both senses, the high court denied the female plaintiffs due process and equal protection of the law, but the women were forewarned by Antonin Scalia who said earlier that women were not protected by the 14th Amendment.

Conservatives on the court and in Congress have regularly voted against equal pay for women so Wal-Mart’s record of gender discrimination is supported by Republicans as a matter of course and the public record. Although the women can regroup and sue Wal-Mart on an individual basis, the restrictive costs for litigation favor the corporate giant and even if they lose one case from one plaintiff, they are unlikely to change their practice of gender discrimination against women. One of the purposes of a class action is if awards to plaintiffs are large and painful enough, a business is apt to change their discriminatory policy to avoid any future action. With yesterday’s decision, the conservative court let Wal-Mart and all large corporations off the hook for damages in discrimination lawsuits. Wal-Mart was the only defendant in the case, but the class action did have the potential of affecting many corporations who may be guilty of discriminating against women and workers in general.

Before the court even heard the case, over 20 of the country’s largest companies filed a brief supporting Wal-Mart because the court’s decision sets precedence for future cases.  Wal-Mart’s attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. said the court’s decision was “an extremely important victory not only for Wal-Mart but all companies that do business in the United States.” A representative of the United States Chamber of Commerce’s litigation arm, Robin Conrad, said that, “This is, without a doubt, the most important class-action case in more than a decade.


We applaud the Supreme Court for affirming that mega-class actions such as this one are completely inconsistent with federal law.”  There is no federal law limiting the size of a class action, but it is an important, beneficial ruling for corporations and businesses. The court has effectively set a standard that there is no class big or small enough to challenge unfair business practices or to hold corporations accountable for harming consumers.

In Wal-Mart’s case, there have been complaints for years of unfair hiring, pay, and advancement opportunities for women, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the women should have been allowed to prove their case and that there was evidence that Wal-Mart had problems with female employees. When the lawsuit was filed, Wal-Mart’s female employees held 70% of the hourly jobs but only held 33% of management positions. It is worth mentioning again that 1.6 million women were part of the class in the lawsuit leading any reasonable person to see a pattern of discrimination in pay and advancement for women in the company.

The Supreme Court is tasked with protecting citizen’s rights according to the Constitution, but the current conservative majority is diligently working to protect corporations. The Founding Fathers did not write the Bill of Rights for corporations, and yet for the second time in a year, the conservatives are treating corporations better than individual citizens. Wal-Mart escaped being held accountable for discriminating against women, and although individually the plaintiffs can file new discrimination lawsuits, the prohibitive lawyer fees certainly will curtail any significant action. In any normal High Court action, the court could have reorganized the case into an acceptable class action, but the conservative majority had no interest in the cause of justice for the women, so they ended the lawsuit as a class action once and for all. They also made it nearly impossible for any other class action to come before the High Court if the class is too large or potential damages are too high. The conservatives on the court all but guaranteed that any suit against a corporation will have to be limited to one individual plaintiff so the court can refuse to hear the case.

Americans will have to get used to being ancillary to corporations in the eyes of the Supreme Court even though the Constitution assigns no rights or privileges to corporations. They will also have to accept the fact that this court has no obligation to protect citizen’s rights. Women already know they will be treated as second-class citizens as long as Republicans are allowed to serve in Congress and vote against equal pay for the same job as a man. Although the Supreme Court does not make laws or set policies, this court has consistently distorted their role as protectors of the Constitution and is legislating from the bench for wealthy corporations and the Republican Party. Instead of protecting the Constitution, this Supreme Court is changing the very nature o...
Continued...

http://www.politicususa.com/en/wal-mart-rights

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors

At least Scalia was honest... the 14th Amendment is not for women, nor is it for any flesh-and-blood human at all.  It clearly states PERSON, and the reason for this was fleshed out time and again in the 30 years following its ratification.  The 14th provides legal craftmakers a mechanism for securing and protecting the rights of fictitious persons... a.k.a. corporations.

The ONLY way to bring down corporate giants is to STOP patronizing their outlets to whatever extent is possible.  You don't "have" to work at Wal-Mart, or anywhere else in particular for that matter.  You also don't "have" to shop at Wal-Mart... the "savings" you get are merely externalized, coming from tax subsidies and in many cases your health.  That's right, what you "save" eating that garbage ends up costing you ten-fold-plus down the road.  Also, what you "save" buying that trinket or bobble from them translates into another industry NOT being supported domestically.

Look, I'm all for people, women included, getting justice in the face of obvious discriminatory practices in the workplace.  I'm also in complete agreement that no one, corporations especially (given the chartered nature of their existence), should discriminate based solely on sex, religion, race, or whatever.  HOWEVER, I also believe that people can make their own choices.  If a business chooses to operate with discriminatory policies and that pisses you off, don't patronize them!  That goes for the mom-and-pop shop down the street, and the mega-corp warehouse of a store as well.

You can't legislate taste, nor can you legislate responsibility.  Well, actually, in the case of corporations (PRE-14th Amendment), I actually think that would be just fine.  However, until we get SCOTUS to make a firm opinion regarding the limitation on the application of "rights" to fictitious persons, we will continue to see the highest court cow-tow to the will of those filling the federal coffers with trade dollars.

Bottom line is, using a corrupt system to punish what are ultimately government franchises just seems pointless to me.  Stop buying their shit and they will be forced to either close up or change their policies.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

charrington

  • Guest


Bottom line is, using a corrupt system to punish what are ultimately government franchises just seems pointless to me.  Stop buying their shit and they will be forced to either close up or change their policies.

I completely agree with this. This is the ultimate power people have as a group however, the down side to making this happen with enough people or I should say awake people to hurt them is a tall order. Solidarity is the issue.

Perhaps a site that lists the offenses of the Corps and reasons? Or would ICE / DHS take it down?

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Ask any 100 random people you meet during the next week and see if they even know what the Bill of Rights basic premise even is.

 Problem is TV tells 90% of the populace what to believe and they obey so as not to labeled a social outcast. It seems it is more important to "fit in" than to understand the whys of a matter.

 Better yet ask those you meet to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, keeping track of those who can will be easier than those who cannot.

Until the majority (70% or more of the people) wake up from their prescription induced twilight existence, it will be an uphill battle for those who are aware of self beyond the material trappings to continue this struggle against the ever encroaching tyranny.
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,156
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Ask any 100 random people you meet during the next week and see if they even know what the Bill of Rights basic premise even is.

Problem is TV tells 90% of the populace what to believe and they obey so as not to labeled a social outcast. It seems it is more important to "fit in" than to understand the whys of a matter.

I'm afraid I must agree with this assessment. Psychologically, most adults are still in high school, and are consequently so terrified of being ridiculed or laughed at by whoever they perceive as the "in-crowd," that they literally would rather see their own children turned into deeply-impoverished, militarily-repressed slaves to a handful of parasitic robber barons than risk being called a (gasp!) "conspiracy theorist."

Establishment shill/intellectual gatekeeper: “You don’t want us to label you a 'conspiracy theorist,’ do you?

Cowardly citizen: “No, no, please! Here, take my wallet if you want, rape my wife if you want, torture my children if you want — just don’t call me a ‘conspiracy theorist’! Anything but that!”

Establishment shill/intellectual gatekeeper: "Then stop asking questions! When we tell you to accept the official story as divine gospel, you do as you're told! Got it, slave?"

Cowardly citizen: "Yes, massa! I is your loyal, groveling, TV-watching, cell phone-fondling, flag-waving, authority-worshipping servant! May I crouch down and lick your hand, dear massa? Or at least your boots?"

::) ::)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

charrington

  • Guest
I'm afraid I must agree with this assessment. Psychologically, most adults are still in high school, and are consequently so terrified of being ridiculed or laughed at by whoever they perceive as the "in-crowd," that they literally would rather see their own children turned into deeply-impoverished, militarily-repressed slaves to a handful of parasitic robber barons than risk being called a (gasp!) "conspiracy theorist."

Establishment shill/intellectual gatekeeper: “You don’t want us to label you a 'conspiracy theorist,’ do you?

Cowardly citizen: “No, no, please! Here, take my wallet if you want, rape my wife if you want, torture my children if you want — just don’t call me a ‘conspiracy theorist’! Anything but that!”

Establishment shill/intellectual gatekeeper: "Then stop asking questions! When we tell you to accept the official story as divine gospel, you do as you're told! Got it, slave?"

Cowardly citizen: "Yes, massa! I is your loyal, groveling, TV-watching, cell phone-fondling, flag-waving, authority-worshipping servant! May I crouch down and lick your hand, dear massa? Or at least your boots?"

::) ::)

I think I lot of people also actually believe what they hear in the media (which is why I personally regard them as the biggest cowards I've ever seen) - but as time goes on it becomes more difficult to deny what they are seeing with their own eyes. I actually believe that there are some that will never wake up - think about that for a minute... and they will continued to believe whatever the media / politicians tell them as nukes hit them in the head...

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,156
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
I actually believe that there are some that will never wake up - think about that for a minute... and they will continued to believe whatever the media / politicians tell them as nukes hit them in the head...

That's why I refuse to waste my time on such people. I figure if they're that hell-bent on finding everything out the hard way, far be it from me to stand in their way.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

charrington

  • Guest
That's why I refuse to waste my time on such people. I figure if they're that hell-bent on finding everything out the hard way, far be it from me to stand in their way.

It's a good policy ---

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline WLGarrison

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
If a corporation is a person, do they have to register for the draft?
The function of the law is not to provide justice or to preserve freedom. The function of the law is to keep those who hold power, in power.
Gerry Spence, Attorney at Law

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,116
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Re: The Founding Fathers Did Not Write The Bill Of Rights To Protect Corporation
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2011, 06:34:35 PM »
If a corporation is a person, do they have to register for the draft?

Corporations are not 'people' ...
corporations are 'persons'.

'People' are also 'persons', but
are not 'corporations'.

'Persons' are legal entities.

St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself."

Offline WLGarrison

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: The Founding Fathers Did Not Write The Bill Of Rights To Protect Corporations
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2011, 10:44:02 AM »
semantics
The function of the law is not to provide justice or to preserve freedom. The function of the law is to keep those who hold power, in power.
Gerry Spence, Attorney at Law

Offline kerrymti

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,467
  • The truth will set us free..and..open their eyes.
Re: The Founding Fathers Did Not Write The Bill Of Rights To Protect Corporations
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2011, 11:12:07 AM »
That's why I refuse to waste my time on such people. I figure if they're that hell-bent on finding everything out the hard way, far be it from me to stand in their way.

Case in point...in late '08 to early '09, I mentioned to my boss that he needed to remove some or all of his money from the stocks and invest in gold (at the time the price was under $1,000/oz, somewhere like 900 something).  We had several conversations about it, he manages a vast family trust fund.  Anyway, he did nothing about it and when I mentioned it at a later date, he actually, laughingly said I was a conspiracy theorist...fast forward to 2011.  He was being particularly 'gripy' one day (shortly after the stocks started tumbling several weeks ago), he was really ticking me off that day and so I just commented, "bet you wish you had bought a bunch of gold back in 09"...he shut up and left me alone. 

Point is, he will not listen so I do not waste my energy on him anymore.  I would rather talk to someone that actually has an open mind, or at least, the ability to open their mind and hear the truth.


worcesteradam

  • Guest
surely the bill of rights limits the power of the federal government
constitutions have no legal authority so they are exempt

Offline Avenue Of Light

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
The Hidden Faith Of The Founding Father's (video)

http://avenueoflight.com/2011/05/1139/

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
surely the bill of rights limits the power of the federal government
constitutions have no legal authority so they are exempt

Please explain more clearly what it is you are saying here... as I read it you are saying that the Bill of Rights limits the government, but the Constitution has no legal power. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights by Convention, are part and Parcel of the SAME Constitution... please explain what you mean if you will.

The Constitution itself is a contractual agreement between the States that creates the federal government... The federal government is limited by it's enumerated duties which can be found in Article I section 8...

The Bill of Rights lists and explains the rights of the people that no government within the united States may transgress...

The Constitution is the ultimate authority and NO government therein created, or any initiator government (State) which has joined by putting pen to this Constitutional contract, is "exempt."

JTCoyoté

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general
knowledge among the people, who have...a right,
an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine
right to that most dreaded and envied kind of
knowledge, I mean the character and conduct of
their rulers."
~John Adams December 27, 1816
 

worcesteradam

  • Guest
sorry. I typed constitutions instead of corporations.
I meant corporations have no legal authority. And by that I mean governmental powers

you read it right anyway.

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
sorry. I typed constitutions instead of corporations.
I meant corporations have no legal authority. And by that I mean governmental powers

you read it right anyway.

I hear ya... that edit time limit sucks some times...

glad you came back and said something in any case.

Corporational structures are a real problem for sure.

Oldyoti

“The Founders set up the 1st Amendment so religion could
never become a divisive tool of faction to destroy the People’s
government. If only they could have foreseen how powerful
corporations would accomplish the same terrible deed -- to
manipulate, direct, and control government to the detriment
of the people and the destruction of Liberty."
  ~JTCoyoté,
from 'A Pre-election Primer and Constitutional Proviso'



Offline fred.greek

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: The Founding Fathers Did Not Write The Bill Of Rights To Protect Corporations
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2014, 10:33:39 AM »
Today, 17 September, is "Constitution Day".

http://www.constitutionday.com/

If you are, or have been, almost any level of government employee, you probably took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign & domestic".

Read the Constitution, and look around.  Does the present national situation "fit" with a plain word reading of the limited government powers set out in the Constitution?
____________________________
Dr. Stirling Silverman, has onlinle a prepper plan which is around 300 pages if downloaded into a single word document.

http://www.thenewsurvivalist.com/survivaldoc.html

He has a number of video presentations such as vitamins, herbal medicine, raising rabbits, bugout bags, etc.  Relevant to Constitution day is his presentation on Fascism in America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rd4aOiB3Y8&list=PL96F3D7E5FF687FC1&index=3

The rest of his presentations can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL96F3D7E5FF687FC1
Retired but still working in the garden...