The Washington Post
Wednesday, January 19, 2011; A14
“IF CORPORATIONS must be treated as "persons" for the purpose of campaign contributions - as the Supreme Court mandated last year in the infamous Citizens United decision - why shouldn't they also enjoy "personal privacy"?
This bizarre question is at the heart of a case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The case threatens to weaken an important tool used to hold government and corporations accountable.”
"Growth of the American Republic, the historians Morrison, Commager, and Leuchtenberg describe how in that era 'privilege controlled politics,' and “the purchase of votes, the corruption of election officials, the bribing of legislatures, the lobbying of special bills, and the flagrant disregard of laws threatened the very foundations of the country.”
2010 NOVEMBER 7
by Steve Beckow
Can the people promoting the undoing of the "New Deal" come in the form of University Law Professors?
“The punch line is this: How could we possibly run a society in which corporations did not have some rights of speech and of property?”
Richard Epstein · Sep. 30 at 5:02amAlthough they called themselves “Property Rights” advocates I believe that the real goal of the “Property Rights” movement was to abolish the “New Deal” and that advocating for “Property Rights” against Eminent Domain was a means to an end. I believe that Coatesville was just one of the victims of the “Property Rights” advocates march through local governments in the Conservative Republican “War against the New Deal”.
More about Mr. Epstein here:
“The regulatory takings movement appears to have its origins in the libertarian school of legal thought associated with the University of Chicago and epitomized by professor Richard Epstein. Epstein's 1985 book, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, provided the impetus for a regulatory takings legal and legislative strategy. It is useful to examine Epstein's writings, for although proponents of regulatory takings legislation invariably argue that the scope of such laws would be finite, Epstein openly asserts that his position on regulatory takings "invalidates much of the twentieth century legislation," including the National Labor Relations Act, minimum wage laws, civil rights legislation, virtually all government entitlement programs, and quite possibly Social Security. In fact, Epstein proposes to challenge the entire New Deal as "inconsistent with the principles of limited government and with the constitutional provisions designed to secure that end."
For instance, Epstein argues that minimum wage laws are ‘undoubted partial takings, with all the earmarks of class legislation, which requires their complete constitutional invalidation.’ Under regulatory takings doctrine, employers forced to pay a statutory minimum wage higher than wages set by free market forces suffer from a government takings of their property. ‘Collective bargaining,’ Epstein asserts, ‘is yet another system in which well-defined markets are displaced by complex common pool devices whose overall wealth effects are in all likelihood negative and whose disproportionate impact, especially on established firms, is enormous.’
…Also, if the state takings statutes now on the books are upheld by the courts, we may well find ourselves on the slippery slope toward the rollback of the New Deal advocated by Epstein. For, once regulatory takings doctrine is ruled constitutional, there is little to prevent its application beyond wetlands and wildlife protection to minimum wage laws, civil rights statutes, and other public interest legislation.”
by Tarso Ramos