Wednesday, November 27, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court God?

To many in the world only God can create a person, yet the Supreme Court of the United States created a Corporate Person, with all the rights of a person; or so it would seem.

How does one create a person out of a number persons?  The law in this case did bequeath a group of persons the added definition of "person"; on top of their already be defined as such.

Does this "person" feel pain, breath in air, have feelings, bear children, have ethics and morals; in other words is it human?

If this Corporate Person were not given such rights of person hood would those persons embodying the Corporate Person be deprived of free speech and lack the freedom to contribute funds to political parties or individuals? 

Those real persons embodying the Corporate Person do in fact gain in political power by their being part of this "creation", by the added benefits of corporate financing, infrastructure, and organization.  Did the Court create a monster?  Now corporations are demanding religious favors.  What next, the right to Bear Arms?  The ability to vote? 

Nature did not have anything to do with the coming into existence of this Corporate Person.  It does not have a will of its own.  It does not have a conscience, nor ethics and morals.  It functions much like a machine, its purpose, to make money and profit: like a machine it can bulldoze anything that stands in its way.

There is no other precedent of "law" creating a person such as this.  By giving this "person" the right of free speech the Court gave this person. in effect, all rights that a "real" person has been given by our Constitution.   The Court did not need to attribute rights to the Corporation since those persons, recognized as the body of the Corporate Person, would not be deprived of their basic right to free speech, or any other right of citizenship. 

Instead the Court created an inequality making up our political structure and culture; where the moneyed class will be heard and those lacking money will not be heard. 

The Court has the opportunity to right a dreadful mistake.  Will it do so?