The Affordable Care Act is once again under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court; this time, opponents are going after the so-called “birth control mandate.” Normally, the story would be on whether or not it actually infringes on the rights of religious groups and individuals who view contraception, specifically ones that work after conception in this case, to be an affront to their religious beliefs. What makes this latest Supreme Court hearing so controversial is that corporations are claiming they have a right to religious freedom.
While business owners and investors certainly do have such rights under the US Constitution, this latest case could take the treatment of corporations as individuals under the Citizens United decision to a completely new level of ridiculousness. It is important to recognize all businesses, whether sole proprietorships or corporations, are considered legal entities separate from their owners, thus the rights of the owners cannot extent to the businesses, even if the owner claims business revenue as personal income. In truth, the Law has often failed to properly distinguish between individual rights and corporate rights, i.e. there is no Bill of Rights for corporations and sometimes they are treated as people under certain laws, but this is a technical distinction that only lawyers would seek to exploit, not a reality that can be legitimately upheld in the real world. Quite frankly, corporations are not people, thus they cannot be treated as people under the Law. Doing so undermines the legitimacy of our legal systems and forces the Law to balance the rights of corporations with individuals. Because religion is an explicit right in the US Constitution, the claim that corporations have this right means their religious freedom likely trumps the right to birth control and other medical treatments as well as other human concerns. The existence of a corporation is not equal to the life of a person, thus any legitimate legal system cannot treat a corporation as an individual and a corporation’s interests cannot trump a person’s wellbeing. In truth, there is an even more legitimate argument to be made for treating animals and plants as people; at least, they are alive. As such, we must ask under this truly bizarre reasoning if companies like Tyson Foods are committing genocide. Of course, this also forces us to recognize people can be punished for crimes like murder, but corporations cannot go to jail. This means the Supreme Court could be creating a special class of citizens immune to just legal action, yet entitled to every freedom and right of every human citizen. Given the Supreme Court’s senseless interpretation of the Law and its failure to recognize the long-term, broader implications of its attempt to bridge holes in the Law, it is time for Congress to act by explicitly defining corporations as not people.
Comments
The power of any legal system is built on its legitimacy. The Law is an intangible force that must balance the broad interests of a People to offer them protection from the misdeeds of others and honor their rights. In other words, people only respect and obey the Law when it serves to protect them from the abuse of others and entities like their government. When a legal system fails to do this over time or blatantly disregards the interests of the People, or even a segment of the People, it loses legitimacy and becomes little more than propaganda machine offering superficial rationales for the abuse of those damned by those in power.
The mass sentencing of 529 Muslim Brotherhood defendants to death in an Egyptian court for an attack on a police station, which resulted in the death of one, is a disconcerting example demonstrating the military-controlled Egyptian government using the judiciary to suppress political rivals. The Western standard for justice hinges on the ability of an accused to have proper representation in the courtroom and proper review of the facts involved in the case. For the death penalty, this irreversible sentence demands even greater care and stronger advocacy. With 529 defendants being judged and 529 airtight cases needing to be offered by prosecutors, there is no way the Egyptian legal system has met any kind of standard or sense of justice, especially given lawyers were not allowed to be present, the trial lasted two days, and 120 of the accused were not present. That said, nations, whether democratic or not, succeed only when they provide structure, i.e. have a constitution that adequately reflects the interests of the People. Beyond the horror of the Egyptian government sentencing 529 people to death with such loose standards and weak justifications, especially considering this case has a political element to it, this incident exemplifies the self-serving, abusive nature of those in power. It also suggests the vision of democracy in Egypt is far from reality. Sadly, it is becoming ever more apparent that the Egyptian military’s refusal to fire on protestors in the 2010-2011 Arab Spring protests and support of then-President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster was simply a strategic decision to prevent the Egyptian military from ripping itself apart and losing the support of the Egyptian People. Instead of supporting democracy and the Egyptian People, the Egyptian military is choosing to serve its interests as it reasserts full control over the Egyptian People. Corrupt? Dealing with a political scandal? Try an old tactic with a new twist as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan did when he decided to ban twitter. The thing about democracy is that it acts like a virus. Certainly, forming a democratic government and cultivating a democratic society is quite the challenge as it requires the balancing of a lot of people’s interests and the willingness of the most influential to sacrifice their some of power/key interests. Once a democracy is started, however, taking away the power and entitled rights of a People is certain to generate great social friction as social inertia is on the side of democratic freedom.
Banning away Twitter was an attempt to control the perception of the Turkish government and suppress the ability of the Turks to decide as a People the fate of their leaders. Governments around the world need to learn the one thing American politicians know best: when the lives of your People are aversively affected by your actions, they get angry and they get active. There is nothing than brings a democratic country together more than a politician messing with their lives. If you are trying to cope with civil unrest, the last thing you should do is suppress the opinions of your people by taking away something as popular as Twitter. Crimea began the week as part of Ukraine, yet ended it as part of Russia. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin probably did not see his bid to assert control over the Ukrainian government in order to prevent the former Soviet state from moving closer to the West turning into such a calamity, he acted knowing the US and the rest of the International Community would not start a war over Ukraine or any former Soviet State.
That said, America and the rest of the world is not afraid of Putin, thus the Russians will pay the price for Putin’s decisions. On the other hand, Putin will never fear the International Community or America. Expanding sanctions will probably not force Putin to return Crimea. In fact, they probably will not prevent him from taking further action against any nation he deems to be a threat, including Ukraine. Consequently, economic sanctions can only weaken Putin’s power in time. Putin has built his throne on prosperity; sanctions will threaten that prosperity. Although Putin’s popularity may be on the rise for “standing up” to the bossy, know-it-all West, Russian patriotism will only go so far and last for so long. Unfortunately, Putin is the type of person who is willing to tear his country apart to hold onto power when his poll numbers starts to reflect the pain Putin has provoked and his opponents start to feel the pressure to become more active. A penalty of $1.2 billion dollars may seem like a lot, but Toyota’s lack of honesty when it came to known vehicle defects that caused incidences of sudden acceleration and killed a number of individuals from 2007 to 2009 must serve as an example that should have never happened. Given that this sum is about six percent of Toyota’s $19 billion annual profit, it is significant enough to send a message. Unfortunately, you cannot jail a company for murder while businesses do not learn. Businesses act on what their leadership perceives to be the interests of the company as well as their own interests. Consequently, those who decided to engage in the deliberate and blatant criminal acts involved in this case, which cost people their lives, must be brought to justice as individuals. While the fine serves as a reminder for Toyota’s decision makers and an incentive for other business leaders to be honest, there are always those who will use a business as a cash cow and make business decisions in order to reap short-term gains. Holding those responsible at Toyota for criminal acts through criminal and/or civil suits would help heighten the seriousness of this incident and punish those who have little regard for the long-term consequences of their actions.
|
Read old posts
April 2020
|