Hirschhorn: Fixing A Bad Supreme Court Decision
Yes, they came in the back-door, alright…
Sensible, intelligent Americans are furious over the recent Supreme Court 5-to-4-decision referred to as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that struck down limits on corporate spending in presidential and congressional elections. Those of us who wail against the corpocracy with its corruption of government could hardly believe that this decision could in any way be justified. A major reaction has been a number of groups calling for a constitutional amendment to fix the problem.
It helps to know that three current constitutional amendments resulted because of Supreme Court decisions that needed remedial action: the Eleventh Amendment (shoring up states’ legal immunity), the Sixteenth Amendment (authorizing a federal income tax), and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (assuring eighteen-year-olds the right to vote).
Among the current efforts MoveToAmend.org has already received nearly 50,000 signatories to support is plan, particularly: Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Another active group is ReclaimDemocracy.org advocating: Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.
Ultimate Civics, a project of Earth Island Institute, wants this: This amendment affirms that constitutional rights extend only to human persons. Corporations, partnerships, and other organization entities are not human persons and, therefore, are not entitled to constitutional protections.
Largely missing from all this attention to the need for a new constitutional amendment, however, is the recognition that Congress, already corrupted by corporate and other special interest money, is very unlikely – no, make that will surely never propose any such amendment. Nor will any congressional attempts at fixing the Supreme Court problem with legislation do what is needed. In fact, there has been an older movement to take all private money out of federal elections and go to total public financing, which would offer the benefit of opening up the US political system to competitive third party candidates. But this too has never received strong support.
What merits far more attention and support is the use of the alternative path to amending the US Constitution offered in Article V. However, the convention of state delegates option has never been used because Congress has stubbornly refused to obey this part of the Constitution, as if they have a right to pick and choose what to obey, despite the one and only requirement for an Article V convention being satisfied. Indeed, there have been some 750 applications for a convention from all 50 states, more than the two-thirds requirement. A major reason Congress has gotten away with this illegal behavior is that nearly all organized political interests on the left and right have opposed a convention. Why? Because they like their current ability to corrupt Congress through lobbying and other forms of spending and fear true reforms of our political and government system through amendments proposed by a convention, which still must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Both ratification and the exact words in Article V prevent any wholesale rewriting of the entire Constitution.
If Americans want to fix the recent, awful Supreme Court decision, then they should rally behind the effort of the nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention at foavc.org. They only advocate for making Congress obey the Constitution and call the first convention, but not specific amendments.
All those campaigning for a new constitutional amendment to accomplish any type of reform to improve the US should recognize that voting in new members of Congress or a President has proven to be totally ineffective in achieving necessary reforms to make government work better. The two-party plutocracy is far too corrupted by business and other special interests. The Founders gave us the Article V convention option because they anticipated the failure of the federal government to honestly serve public interests. Now, more than ever, is the time to use what they gave us. Now is the time for Americans to stop being constitutional hypocrites, saying they love and honor the US Constitution but refusing to make Congress obey every part of it, especially Article V.
How about President Obama who used to teach constitutional law getting behind this, especially because he reacted to the recent Supreme Court decision this way: “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” Wouldn’t it be logical for the president to demand that Congress obey the Constitution?
Finally, when corporations are given more freedoms as if they are persons the inevitable result is that citizens lose freedoms and liberties, something that conservatives and libertarians in particular should recognize.
~ The Author ~
Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Sprawl Kills – How Blandburbs Steal Your Time, Health and Money and Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government. He is a former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources at the National Governors Association and a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress.




The FEC is an unConstitutional abomination and should be eliminated. No one should have to justify or report to any government agency how they go about supporting candidates.
As to corporate contributions to campaigns, if corporations are subject to laws enacted by elected representatives, shouldn’t they rightfully be able to have a say in the process that determines who those representatives are?
Mister Hirshhorn sounds more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing or a trojan horse than a patriot. The worst thing we as a people could do right now is call a Constitutional Convention for any reason. That is exactly what our enemies want. They already have a new Constitution written for such an opportunity. It is called “Constitution for the New States of America” and a copy of it is in William Cooper’s book “Behold a Pale Horse”.
As for the Supreme Courts ruling in favor of corporations’ free speech rights, what is wrong with that idea? Why do people claim it is going to make a big difference in the first place? After all, corporations are made up of groups of people and they have a right to push their ideas just like anyone else. Also, I have listened to tons of commercials in my time and I have never even been to the places that produced the advertisements. I have seen tons of democratic commercials during election seasons and they never got me to vote for any socialist/democratic politicians either. So, I can only believe this outrage hides a deeper agenda. Someone is up to no good. And Guess what? Your story confirms that fact! It is the Hegelian Dialectic put into practice. To this amending the Constitution or calling for a Constitutional convention, I say leave the Constitution alone you fools and get rid of the corrupt politicians instead.
P.S. The Supreme Court is the best branch of government we got right now. They have rightly declared many Acts of Congress and orders of the President unconstitutional recently. I have also found that many so-called patriots either don’t understand Constitutional law or outright lie about what the court really said in the first place. I will give you one example of this fraud I have heard in the past. In the Heller gun case, a radio personality screamed bloody murder over that case. They said the court ruled that DC now could legitimately make everyone get a license to own a gun and this could spread across the country. Well, NO THEY DIDN’T. THE COURT DIDN’T EVEN RULE DIRECTLY ON THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE HELLER DIDN’T ASK THEM TO DO SO YOU FOOLS. READ THE RULING. Why didn’t he? Apparently, since Heller has a cop background, he didn’t mind the licensing requirement enough to challenge it DIRECTLY at the time. Bet he thinks differently about it today. Now, the truth is that the government has NO AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE A LICENSE TO PRACTICE ANY OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THAT INCLUDES THE 2ND AMENDMENT. (See the history and law definition for “right”. They came from our creator, NOT GOVERNMENT!)Unfortunately, most people don’t know the difference between a God-given RIGHT and a man-made privilege created by the government for the 14th Amendment former slaves. How did most white people start being treated like slaves? When the fools took SS# and became 14th Amendment United States citizens? Why did they do such a thing? Because they allowed the government to take over their educational system and the government never taught them the difference/truth. AKA They are dumbed down/stupid. Bet you are saying that you aren’t stupid, right? Let me ask you a question. If you were born in raised in Ohio (state in the U.S.A.) and the IRS send you a form that has an address with OH (federal state created by the U.S. government) for the state, are those the same? Hell no! Is a person born and raised in Ohio automatically a U.S. citizen? No! Wake up from that governement created Matrix you have been living in all your life and read the Buck Act. It is on the internet!
P.S.S. If you made your writers back up their legal comments with the law, you wouldn’t have fools push such tripe like this here. It would save a lot of time and confusion for your readers who haven’t study the law enough to recognize a fraud when they see it.
Are you saying that using my own money to buy a political ad is not speech? Or that corporate money used to buy a political ad is not speech? You say money is not speech, but it a tool that allows speech to be heard.