Original Intent
Posted by Chris Martin at 5/27/2009 8:48 AM 
Categories: The Constitution
Tags: I feel that Thomas Jefferson is very close to me right now.
Categories: The Constitution
Tags: I feel that Thomas Jefferson is very close to me right now.
Since Obama has not nominated Kenneth Starr to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court we can expect a great deal of conservative huffing and puffing about his choice. Wonks Anonymous, for one, looks forward to this bloviation, particularly to discussions of the "original intent" of the founders.
Indeed, he would like to propose a question that will be useful in demonstrating just how much any nominee has deviated from the pure original intent of our godlike founders.
Where do you stand on the civil rights of corporations? Are they the same as those of ordinary citizens or can they be restricted in the interest of general order and prosperity?
Because it seems to Wonks Anonymous that judicial activists in the 19th century decided this question in a way that had nothing to do with the original intent of the founders. Through various decisions they effectively awarded full civil rights to corporations and established precedents that they should be treated exactly as if they were ordinary citizens.
Which our founders would have thought suspect at the least. Because corporations are and have always been creatures of the state, chartered to accomplish certain purposes and allowed certain privileges - for example limited liability for their owners - because they were thought to accomplish social purposes.
If you asked the founders for an example of a corporation they might mention the British East India Company or the Bank of England. They would hardly consider these bastions of privilege and government sponsored monopoly as needing particular protections from the state. Indeed the serious debate over the charter and the continued existence of one of the first major US corporations - The Bank of the US - shows just how much our founders and the next generations suspected corporate power and motives.
Of course the 19th century saw things differently and, in the reigning ideology of the time, these state sponsored concentrations of power and resources were seen as sturdy individuals, as much in need of protection from the state as the rest of us. Hence the rights to corporate free speech and corporate due process etc.
Maybe these were the right decisions, maybe even if they weren't it is too late to go back, nevertheless we can hardly say that corporate personhood was the original intent of the founders. So how about it conservatives?
Indeed, he would like to propose a question that will be useful in demonstrating just how much any nominee has deviated from the pure original intent of our godlike founders.
Where do you stand on the civil rights of corporations? Are they the same as those of ordinary citizens or can they be restricted in the interest of general order and prosperity?
Because it seems to Wonks Anonymous that judicial activists in the 19th century decided this question in a way that had nothing to do with the original intent of the founders. Through various decisions they effectively awarded full civil rights to corporations and established precedents that they should be treated exactly as if they were ordinary citizens.
Which our founders would have thought suspect at the least. Because corporations are and have always been creatures of the state, chartered to accomplish certain purposes and allowed certain privileges - for example limited liability for their owners - because they were thought to accomplish social purposes.
If you asked the founders for an example of a corporation they might mention the British East India Company or the Bank of England. They would hardly consider these bastions of privilege and government sponsored monopoly as needing particular protections from the state. Indeed the serious debate over the charter and the continued existence of one of the first major US corporations - The Bank of the US - shows just how much our founders and the next generations suspected corporate power and motives.
Of course the 19th century saw things differently and, in the reigning ideology of the time, these state sponsored concentrations of power and resources were seen as sturdy individuals, as much in need of protection from the state as the rest of us. Hence the rights to corporate free speech and corporate due process etc.
Maybe these were the right decisions, maybe even if they weren't it is too late to go back, nevertheless we can hardly say that corporate personhood was the original intent of the founders. So how about it conservatives?
Comments